Bible Study: Be Fruitful and Multiply
by The Righterzpen
Summary: What can we learn about sexuality from the life of Jesus?
1. Chapter 1

**Eunuchs and Jesus Christ**

 _(Mathew 19:12)_

OK, here's a subject for a Bible study most people get squeamish about. There are many books and commentaries written about marriage, chastity and even things like over coming sexual addiction. (Which is a real problem in the Christian community.) Most of those types of things, people can handle. They can talk about the wonderful benefits of marriage and sexual relationships with their spouses, dealing with adultery, helping teens and young adults make it to their wedding day with their virginity and dignity in tact; but when you start taking about Jesus Christ and sex, people get weirded out.

So here we go.

 _ **Question #1**_

 _ **Does the Bible give us any indications, explanations that help us understand the difference between sin and biology?**_

We know back in Genesis God commanded everything on the planet to "be fruitful and multiply". Well, I can certainly attest to the fact that the weeds in my garden are obeying this command. Be fruitful and multiply and fill Righterzpen's gardens with weeds. They do that well.

Joking aside here, I have covered in other Bible studies how in Genesis when God says "it was good"; the word "good" in the Hebrew here is in the context of something pleasant. It's used in the context of describing people, plants and or animals that are "beautiful". They are "pleasing" to look at; or other contexts where things are "pleasing" to the senses. (Like eating a good meal.) Or even "pleasing" psychologically. (Like relationships with family, friends, pets etc.) The reflection of this pleasantness comes to us from God's creative action. Creating this universe gave God pleasure; made Him content with a plan and satisfied with what He'd made. So in turn, that good pleasure of God is instilled in the creation in it's reproductive capacity. (Pleasure, contentment, satisfaction) Life begets life and life can not exist without the breath of life given by God. This obviously is how God is still active in creating even though the heavens and earth are "done"; from a creative design standpoint.

 _ **So yes, on account of this reproductive capacity that's present in the creation; the Scriptures do give us indications in the law of the difference between sin and biology.**_

First off - in the Old Testament Levitical Law, a number of people who commit sexual acts God considered "abominations" are to be put to death. _(Abomination loosely translated means something God finds "disgusting".)_

This list includes people who commit adultery, beastiality (sex with animals), homosexuals, people who force others to have sex, (rape), and fornicators (people with multiple sex partners).

Numbers 31 (passage about Midianite women and children) actually addresses the issue of sex with prepubescent children. (Not something God looks favorably upon either.) Numbers 31 is a complicated passage and many people use it to accuse God of telling Israel to commit war crimes and that's not actually what's happening. But the explanation of that passage is a subject for a different study.

There's also a passage in Deuteronomy where people often accuse God of telling a non-espoused victim to marry their rapist, but that isn't what that passage is saying either. That Deuteronomy passage isn't addressing rape; rape is addressed a few verses earlier.

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

To "lay hold of" in this context means to "trick" or "seduce". This is not forcible rape, because she knows what he wants and allows this to happen. This also goes along with verse 23 & 24 about the betrothed woman "not crying out" in the city; for the assumption is that she'd be in the vicinity of other people who'd hear her screaming for help and come to protect her.

Verse 25 also states specifically about "force"; assuming that she'd put up some sort of fight and thus there would be physical evidence that she "cried out" but no one heard her to come and help her.

Verse 26 is also fascinating in that apparently thousands of years before "women's liberation" God states to humanity that rape is an act of violence and not an act of sex; for it is "like unto when a man rises up and slays his neighbor". Here is an acknowledgement that something has gone seriously wrong in the psyche of the rapist and thus warrants putting him to death in order to protect the community.

 _ **What fornication is not:**_

Now, stipulation for people who were not already espoused (or were in consummated marriages) was that if they had sex with one other partner who was also not espoused or married; they weren't to be put to death. (Exodus 22:16) They were to get married. Now if they refused to get married, than they fell into the "fornicator" category.

This category (non espoused people) is also picked up in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. The passage looks kind of strange in English and causes a lot of confusion. Some commentators think this is talking about a father giving a daughter in marriage; (an older daughter as opposed to a younger daughter) but that is not what this is talking about.

 _If his virgin "passes the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sins not, let them marry. Never the less, he that stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity but having power of his own will and has decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he that gives her in marriage does well, but he that gives her not in marriage does better."_

If the virgin "passes the flower of her age" means she's not a virgin any longer. And this is why "need so require" (referencing back to the law in Exodus) to be married. "he sins not" (He has not sinned for lack of control over himself.) Yet if a man has power of himself that his virgin still is a virgin by the time they get to the wedding ceremony; than he has done honorably by her. So then he that gives her unto marriage (because they already had sex) does what is morally appropriate. But he that gives her not unto marriage (because he's maintained control over himself) does the more noble thing.

So there is marriage application as opposed to sexual behavior God sees as an abomination.

 _ **Marriage bed undefiled:**_

Now this phrase is out of Hebrews 13:4. " _Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."_

Now some have said this passage supports the idea that any heterosexual behavior is OK, between a husband and wife; but what this passage is actually talking about is the conception of children... and folks, children can only be conceived one way! And this is why it says "whoremongers and adulterers God will judge". "Whoremongering" can also take place within a marriage. Rightful and healthy sexual activity should not be degrading to either husband or wife. Sexual behavior that God does not find "disgusting", does not involve body openings where genitalia was not designed to go.

 _ **Biology - things we know that happen naturally to males and females.**_

Biology tells us that certain things happen to males and females regardless of the individuals intent on sexual activity. Most basically, biologically speaking, we are talking about engorgement of genitalia with blood and discharge of fluid from the body. This happens for a variety of reasons. Some if it is connected to sleep cycles, biological functions like having to urinate, hormone cycles. This is part of the clock work of being a biological entity. These things happen to animals and plants in their own rights too. Some of it is connected to the neurological hardwiring of the organism. Castrated animals (and humans) may still seek to have sex. This is because that although the organs that produce the hormones may be removed, the neurological wiring that drives the process (behavior) is still present. The reproductive system is still connected to the brain, even if parts of the system are missing.

So these cycles happen to everyone regardless of age. These occurrence may be more or less frequent depending on age and the presence; or lack there of hormones. Engorgement of genitalia even without bodily discharge is part of biology's way of maintaining the heath of the organ. It's the same with other body systems (digestion, the brain, limbs). There are times when more blood is shunted off to certain systems for the reason of performing certain functions.

All of that is part of biology and that in and of itself is not sin. Now these functions can be misappropriated and used in a sinful way, this is true; but the function itself is not sin.

And here's an instance where the "overly conservative"? (no that's not the right word) Church groups / denominations that have aberrant teachings concerning the division between intended sexual behavior and biology, have gone off the rails. Both eggs and sperm are discharged naturally from the body regardless of whether or not they are intended for sexual behavior by the individual organism. It isn't necessarily a matter of the will of the individual to do this. Especially during puberty, it often happens without instigation. This is true of pregnancy too. Women experience an increase of body discharge when they are pregnant, besides having to urinate more frequently.

 _ **Masturbation:**_

Here is an issue certain people get squeamish about that is actually never addressed in the Scripture. People who say it is, cite one passage about a man Onan who "spilled his seed" (on the ground assuming) and "God was angry with him". (Genesis 38) Now if we read this passage carefully, we see what God was really angry at Onan for. God was angry at Onan because Onan hated his brother and refused to raise up children to this brother after the brother died.

God was not angry at the loss of sperm cells. There's usually plenty more where those came from and besides, we know from basic biology that sperm cells get "spilled" all the time.

So, other than this assumed passage in Genesis, the Scripture never addresses the subject of masturbation. Why is this? The answer to that might actually be in Matthew 19?

 **Jesus Christ:**

So, nuts and bolts biology. We just addressed that due to natural processes, organs become engorged with blood and body fluids get discharged on a pretty consistent basis. Jesus, having been a biological entity; obviously these things happened to him/Him too.

Now, Matthew 19;12 is a very interesting passage. It talks about eunuchs. Jesus makes this statement in a couple of verses that some are born eunuchs by nature. (There's something physically wrong with them. Be it actual genital birth defect or lack of appropriate hormone level for the person's age.) Some are made eunuchs by men. (Male humans who've had portions (or all) of their reproductive systems removed for various reasons.) And the English translation says "Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

 _ **Literal translation:**_

 _"One has made himself a eunuch in order to reign in the Kingdom of God. He empowered by God, who restrains him, let him continue in this command."_

Now this particular verse is in the singular. We know there's only One who REIGNS in the Kingdom of God, who fits the biological capacity to be a eunuch in the first place. The Father and the Spirit don't have bodies, so if you don't have bodies, you have no reproductive system.

Now this choice to make himself/Himself a eunuch is a reference to Jesus's choice to not get married. He never gets married, so obviously he/He's not producing children. Now Jesus actually had that choice. If he/He decided that he/He really didn't want to endure the whole wrath of God / crucifixion for the sake of saving sinners ordeal, his other option was to produce his/His own children in the flesh.

Now this would have produced two races of people on earth; the race of the first Adam and the race of the last Adam. Now Jesus being sinless, all his/His offspring would have also been sinless. He also would have gone through the same process the first Adam went through as far as obtaining a wife, seeing how the daughters of the first Adam would not have been considered an appropriate helpmate; because this choice would have eliminated any opportunity for redemption any wife Jesus may have chose from the first Adam's children.

So in this sense, Jesus could not "have His cake and eat it too". It was either one choice or the other, and since the wrath of God, being crucified for the sake of redeeming sinners is what both Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit) intended from before the foundations of the world; this was the choice Jesus went for. And this is how he/He REIGNS in the Kingdom; for in a race of Divine beings, there'd be no one to "reign over", because they'd all be equal.

So Jesus Christ went through all of life, died a virgin (having never had sex with any other biological entity).

 _ **Now we get to the second part of this verse. "He empowered by God who restrains him, let him continue in this command."**_

The phrase "empowered by God" implies that there is not an innate ability inherent in the personhood of Jesus (God or man attribute of the incarnation) to restrain himself. He was incarnated in the likeness of the first Adam as a male human with a completely functioning body as the first Adam had.

Also this phrase "empowered by God who restrains him..." is in a participle of speech that is a continuous action. Meaning that the biological sex drive Jesus contended with, he/He contended with his/His entire post-pubescent life. Even though the choice to not be married was made at a specific point in his/His life; the consequences of dealing with that choice were still present for the duration of his/His life. The last portion of this verse could probably even be considered a prayer. "Continue to restrain me, because I don't have the power in and of my own volition to restrain myself."

Now what exactly does this mean for someone who didn't have any sin? That's hard to determine.

 _ **Be fruitful and Multiply:**_

One thing we do know from Genesis is that "be fruitful and multiply" was the first command given to completed creation. This command is probably given as such because of the innate desire to do so, is woven into the fabric of life itself. The reason for this is because God is a creative living entity. So this drive to reproduce is part of the fabric of life because "creating" is fundamental to the definition of life. It's fundamental to the definition of life, because it's fundamental to the entity that God is as the Creator.

This being said though, we can recognize simply from biology that human sexuality runs on a bit of a different / expanded paradigm than the rest of creation. One example of this is that man is the only mammal that does not have a penile bone. This anatomical difference makes copulation a little more complicated for humans that it is for other mammals and this I think is a direct result of man being made in the image of God. Human interactions run more on a relational level than other animals who's job it simply is to multiply. This is also bore witness to the fact that most humans have one baby at a time. So yes, there are some notable differences in the sexuality of humans as opposed to the rest of creation.

So all this being duly noted; the necessity of Jesus needing to be restrained from fulfilling this command in the flesh - it would not have been appropriate from either a theological or biological stand point to remove this aspect of Jesus's personhood from his/His existence simply because it was "not in the plan". Just because the drive was not convenient to his/His purpose, did not justify it's elimination and so therefore it wasn't eliminated. There are other theological reasons for this drives presence also; which I'll explain in a minute. Jesus just had to learn to exist within the boundaries that hedged him/Him in, despite his/His natural inclination to obey the command.

Now the "theological reasons" had to do with being an appropriate sacrifice. Since Adam was created in the image of God; Jesus had to be incarnated in the likeness of Adam. So if Christ had not bore all the same potential "frailties" Adam had, there would have been grounds to accuse God of "cheating". So thus is why Jesus, biologically remained fully intact.

The other aspect of this too, I think had to do with Jesus being able to fully engage in what it meant to be part of the creation. Not just the pain and trials of living in a fallen world, which is / was rightfully under the wrath of God; but also the joys, pleasures and contentments. "What is man that You are mindful of him; or the son of man that You take care of him?"

So what does it mean in the end of the verse (Matthew 19:12) to continue in the command if he/He was constrained from doing so in the flesh? We know from the first part of that verse that the command he/He was to continue in; wasn't being commanded to be a eunuch. That was a choice he/He made for the sake of atoning for sin, not a command that was given to him/Him. And we know he/He would not have been commanded to that end, because that would have been a violation of the original "be fruitful and multiply" command.

So the command "continued in", in relation to the context of what this passage is talking about had to be the original "be fruitful and multiply". How did Jesus still fulfill this command, although not in the flesh? That question is addressed/expounded upon in the next chapter.

 _ **Sin and temptation:**_

Now in the realm of our existence as living entities; we have an innate desire for the pursuit of that which pleases us. We see this in food, drink, rest, labor, recreation and reproduction. These desires are there because they are a reflection of the goodness of God that God intentionally wove into the fabric of life.

The temptation is not in the eat, drink, sleep, work, play or ability to have an orgasm. The temptation is to pursue these desires outside of the proper context that God has intended them for. We enjoy these things because we are designed to do so. We transgress when we put any of them above the rightful place God is to occupy; wherewith He's made known the boundaries He's put on the pursuit of these desires.

So the enjoyment that's designed to be had isn't the sin. The Scripture tells us that we are to be moderate about what we do and to do all that we engage in to the glory of God.

We see this example practically played out in Jesus, in that because Adam was created in Christ's image; Jesus also liked to eat, drink, sleep, work, play and would have pursued sexual activity within the confines of what was appropriate for him/Him.

Thus also being temptable in any of these areas to cross the line, given context of whatever circumstance he/He was confronted with at the time. For example, though it was not wrong for Jesus to consume food, there was a time he did abstain; and did so to the point of the brink of starvation. This showed forth his/His resolve to even be willing to die in pursuit of obedience to the Father; which ultimately is what happened. Where the first Adam forfeited his life to save his will; Jesus forfeited his will to ultimately save his life (as well as the lives of those he/He'd come to atone for).

 _ **Jesus's psychological profile:**_

Now a couple of things we do find in Scripture that we see impacted Jesus's psychological makeup had to do with his/His personality. He gets angry, sad, frustrated, annoyed, happy, disgusted, despondent, confused etc. and more along the lines of biology - tired and hungry. Also we see, he/He's obviously quite intelligent and has a bit of whit to him/Him. "Sense of humor" is probably there too, but it's a little more difficult to identify because things that are "funny" in the Scripture are more funny because of their irony than they are "ha ha - funny". So yes, some of the witty come backs / statements Jesus makes to people, show an ironic and intelligent type of sense of humor. He can catch the crafty in their own craftiness and both he/He and they know it - and that's "ironically" funny.

Now also added to this are things he/He knew about him/Himself. Who he/He was, why he/He was here, the task ahead etc. These aspects, plus being without sin, made him/Him alienated in certain respect from the rest of humanity. Now he/He obviously liked people, but was often misunderstood and misjudged, which appears to be at least part of the reason he/He appears to have been frequently frustrated.

He also appears to contend with a lot of frustration based in the divergence of what he/He understood about God and what the rest of humanity understood about God. Zealots fall into two categories. Ones who want people to understand so their relationship with God is better and ones who want their egos stroked by being told they are right. That's the basic dividing line. So based in the desire for others to know, understand and believe, Jesus exhibited a lot of passion.

Interestingly though, despite the differences between men and women (men tend to be more task orientated while women tend to be more relationally orientated); Jesus was a good mix of both task and relationally orientation. This makes sense because both genders are created in God's image. So in Jesus we see the whole range of emotion as well as a linear thinking organization of the mind. This balance makes him/Him well equipped to deal with both genders and we see record of those differing approaches in the Scripture.

Next we see, that because of not having sin and because of being so different in the nature of who and what he/He was; we do see some isolation and feeling alone as being a very accurate reality for Jesus. Many of us at various times feel misunderstood, misjudged, isolated and alone for various misunderstandings or misperceptions of ourselves. But Jesus really was different, so his/His experience in this regard, was shifted on a different paradigm than most ours are. The psychiatrists in many regards were right about Jesus's psychological profile. They just weren't right for the right reasons. On the flips side of this though, we can also ascertain that God understands our sorrows and grief.

So now all these layers that produce feelings of isolation and loneliness, obviously also produce stress.

Now how this plays out in the world; is most human beings contend with three different major areas of life. Power (who am I / why am I here), Money (the acquisition of resources to obtain your goals) and Sex (comfort has multiple extensions that though they do not all run on the sexual behavior continuum, all endeavors for comfort are "sex orientated" based in gender.)

Jesus obviously dealt in all these realms as evidenced of his/His considerable wisdom as exhibited by examples we see of his/His responses to such realms as written in the gospels. He devoted a lot of thought and consideration to all these realms and he/He had quite a repertoire of behavioral resources to draw from. Although he/He did not react the same way to everyone, or every situation, his/His personality remained consistent across all encounters. This is a good thing, because it showed forth his/His basic personality to be very stable.

 _ **Isolation, loneliness and stress:**_

Now these realities of our emotional lives are dealt with in various attempts to obtain comfort from the biting sting of them. Now the goodness of God reflected in the reproductive capacity of life, if attended to in prayer can be a spiritual experience for the person(s) praying. It's a bit of a different dynamic when two people are engaged instead of a self initiated action, but needless to say, the pursuit of the experience of orgasm is often utilized to reduce isolation, loneliness and stress; of which prayer also does this too. So combining the two may provide, in more practical terms, a quicker means to the end of; being desire for relief. Besides, nothing is off limits of being able to share with /and in the awareness of the presence of God. Not that God is not aware of what is going on regardless anyways; whether being engaged in as sin or not.

So this being a reflection of God's goodness, would it really make sense for Jesus to be denied access to that pleasure, comfort and satisfaction when those attributes themselves are part of God's goodness? If the Bible speaks nothing of condemnation of sinners for sexual release sought by self stimulation; as an act simply a means to an end itself, why would Jesus be exempt? Sinners also have the choice of marriage; of which by necessity of his/His desire to secure atonement, Jesus was forbidden. So if you are prohibited from marriage, what other option is there, (besides self denial)?

 _ **"He empowered by God who restrains him, let him continue in this command."**_

"Continue to restrain me, because I don't have the power in and of my own volition to restrain myself." (I don't have inherent in the nature of my personhood the ability to eliminate my own sex drive from my life experience.)

God the Father hedged Jesus into a space to contend with something Jesus didn't have the ability to eliminate. The Father was the only space Jesus could take this to. "No temptation has taken you that is not common to man, but God has provided an escape." What escape do we suppose that was in these circumstances?

So I've concluded, looking at all this information that it's possible / probable and rather likely that Jesus Christ engaged in certain behaviors (highly likely interlinked to prayer) with a consistent degree of frequency.


	2. Chapter 2

**God's Goodness: the Parable of "Be Fruitful and Multiply" to Salvation**

Now after doing a bit more contemplating on Jesus Christ and the whole "be fruitful and multiply" command; I came to the conclusion that this study wasn't exactly complete in explaining the spiritual aspect of the whole question.

Now there are several references in the Bible about Christ and the church being portrayed by the parable of marriage. There are general parabolic references in places like Revelation that talk about "the marriage supper of the lamb". Jesus gives a parable about 10 virgins, and such like references. Than we have the Song of Solomon, which is quite descriptive of sexual activity. I've seen Bible commentators get "hinky" about that too. "Oh that's not talking about Christ and the church; it's just a lovely (mildly pornographic?) book of the Bible describing a husband / wife relationship. Although I would agree with these commentators that Christ does not have sex with anyone biologically speaking; the parable of sex to salvation is there.

 ** _How is that and where is it?_**

First off, let's start with God. God created a universe. He provides for the life in that universe and in general terms protects it. More specifically though, God (through Jesus Christ) provides atonement for the redemption of that universe (by atoning for human sin) as well as protecting that universe and the humans redeemed, from His own wrath. Which in turn, for psychologically healthy human males; provision and protection is part of their psychological makeup. They are like this because God is like this.

Now "provision and protection" like the continuum of human behavior (from general stranger to stranger social interaction to the conception of children) also runs on a continuum. Obviously this makes sense because it's part of the general psychological makeup of healthy males and seems to me to be part of the greater continuum of human behavior.

Now obviously there are female humans who operate in roles of "provision and protection". We have single mothers and we have females in occupations that "provide and protect". So, this "provide and protect" trait _is_ a general human trait; yet also generally and specifically more obvious of psychologically healthy males. So this is why we see more males working outside the home to provide for their families and females in child care rolls across the globe. Now in practical terms, I don't see anything wrong with dads that stay home to care for kids and moms that go to work. More often than not though, it's the other way around. This I think is a reflection of how "man made in God's image" played out in practical terms of creating humanity and why God had an "only begotten son" and not an "only begotten daughter".

 ** _Jesus and gender roles:_**

Now we see plenty of examples in Scripture of how Jesus dealt differently with males than he/He dealt with females and children. There are more examples of "provision and protection" offered by Jesus to females and children than to males (although there are some examples of males Christ "protected"). The over all theme in this regard is the protection of the weaker and "weaker" certainly includes elderly men and little boys as well as women and girls. And so this is where the behavioral continuum comes into play in regards to Jesus (stranger to stranger social interaction to the conception of children). And on account of these examples, it's quite easy to see how Jesus was a psychologically healthy heterosexual male; who contended with the drive of sexuality on the one end of this behavioral continuum.

Now back in Genesis, God explains to Adam and Eve that her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her. This is picked up in the epistles with commands of women being submissive to husbands; but also (more importantly noted here) the church (redeemed believers) being submissive to Christ.

And here's how that cycle works. Spirit of God is the agent of redemption igniting faith. This happens because of Christ's atonement. Real faith creates awareness of God which creates obedience (submission) to God's plan (speaking in terms of both general and individually). Furthered obedience opens the door for a greater awakening of faith, which creates more in depth awareness of God, which in turn creates even more obedience. This is the same process as 'her desire will be toward her husband and he will rule over her'. The deeper faith grows, the more we want to know Christ, the more obedient we become. In practical terms: faith makes gratitude, then comes the task assigned by God (plan for that individual), followed by "what's the next task", deeper faith, more gratitude, next task.

In the parable shown forth by the "conception of children" end of the behavioral spectrum; 'ecstasy in the culminated act' is the equivalent of the 'eureka'! gratitude moments in the redemption cycle. (The "Oh my God Thank You." moment.) Now obviously both of these cycles happen over and over again. This is how faith grows and human marriages deepen.

 ** _Jesus and the Believer:_**

Now as specifically for Jesus Christ in the spiritual aspect of this cycle. His 'initial ecstasy of culminated act' was the resurrection. That's what made the rest of this relational stuff between Him and the believer possible. The 'deeper faith, more gratitude, next task' commenced by 'ignition of faith (which is the believer's resurrection unto redemption) awareness of God, leading to obedience'.

Just had another interesting revelation in all of this, related to the law in Exodus on marriage and the epistle about "past the flower of her virginity". Both cases address sexual acts having taken place before the actual wedding. Which this makes an interesting translation into the spiritual realm of salvation. If the final resurrection from the dead on the New Testament side of the cross is the "wedding feast of the lamb" than the "believers resurrection unto redemption" is the man who "could not keep his virgin". Ironically, the Scripture doesn't say that he has sinned in this regard, yet in marriage is doing what is "morally appropriate".

That being said though, the point of pouring out the Holy Spirit was that we would both have power to proclaim the gospel and that power would be made manifest in obedience to God (both in gospel plan and external moral behavior).

The believers on the Old Testament side of the cross apparently didn't have the luxury of the compulsion to obedience provided by the indwelling of the Spirit. And this is why if you look at people like Abraham, Lot, Moses David, Solomon etc., their lives were an absolute mess.

Connected to this though is also Israel the national entity (which came to an end from God's perspective in the first century A.D.) God gave Israel the national entity a "bill of divorcement" because of their adultery. The believers on the Old Testament side of the cross were not divorced from God, because they were killed by the law, so they could be joined to Christ.

This is why we see in the beginning of the book of Revelation that Jesus appears as "a lamb slain" to open the seals in Revelation and with Him appear a great multitude which came out of "tribulation". These are the souls of Old Testament believers who's bodies are still waiting the final resurrection. Atonement was secured Friday night, so when Jesus died, His body went into the grave and His human soul went to stand before the Father. Thus one difference between OT side of the cross and NT side of the cross.

Now for us, one benefit of the indwelling Spirit is that this arrangement helps us to recognize that we belong to Christ. This is why there's so much admonition in the epistles about lack of obedience (especially related to morality) is a red flag of not really being regenerated / redeemed. So I would say in that regard, as a believer in-between the cross and the final judgement; I'm really glad Jesus "could't control" Himself.

This also puts an interesting twist on that passage in Matthew about Jesus the eunuch. God restrained Jesus in the flesh, but didn't restrain the Spirit after Jesus returned to heaven in bodily form.

 ** _Mary at the Tomb_ :**

This also adds an interesting nuance to Mary at the tomb when Jesus tells her not to touch Him because He hasn't ascended to the Father.

Now there's a couple of possibilities here. _(Although #1 is probably true too; I think #3 is probably the "why".)_

 ** _#1_ _-_** Jesus may have still been receiving additional revelation after the resurrection in the same manner that he/He received it before. He didn't automatically know everything. Stuff had to be revealed to him/Him by the Father. And since he/He was resurrected with the same body that went into the grave; he might have been thinking that OK, since I haven't ascended to the Father, don't anybody touch me.

Where, as a result of that meeting with Mary, the Father may have said: No it's OK, They can touch you, because they need proof that You are actually resurrected. And if that's the case; it is evidenced that people did touch him/Him after Mary almost literally ran into Him.

 ** _#2_ -** Assumptions about Mary Magdalene's intent? A lot of church tradition says Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but that isn't supported by the Scripture. The 'prostitute' in the NT was Lazarus and Martha's sister Mary. Although here too, the Scripture doesn't specify if Mary was a literal prostitute or just "morally loose". She's described as a "sinful woman"; which in the context does mean sexually immoral.

 ** _Another Mary:_**

(This is the Mary that cried all over Jesus's feet and wiped them with her hair.) We know the context denotes sexual immorality because of the language used. (Simon the Pharisee makes the assertion that Jesus could not be a prophet because he/He had no idea what kind of woman it was that "touches" him.) The word "touch" here is only used one other place in the Scripture and in that context it means to molest or fondle.

There are other clues in the text as to Simon the Pharisee's role in this. He's defrauded Mary of possessions that are rightfully hers (this jar of perfume she has). The text indicates that she "received back unto herself" this perfume, probably as "payment" for doing what Simon wanted her to. The text also indicates that only members of Simon's household were present and that Mary was notified when Jesus came into the house.

So "the plan" was that Mary was suppose to seduce Jesus (thereby giving Simon something to accuse him/Him of.) The plan fell apart though when Mary got there and pretty much "came unglued". (She couldn't bring herself to get passed Jesus's feet - basically.) So after this, Jesus starts talking about sin being forgiven, implying in the context that Mary will be forgiven, but Simon won't.

Now this event (crying on Jesus's feet) happens between the arrest and death of John the Baptist and appears to have happened in Capernaum. Now in the years that follow, it seems Lazarus and Mary went to go live with their sister Martha in Bethany. Martha was probably a widow (she had her own house). Simon the Pharisee, if he was related to them (which textual evidence seems to suggest); he was probably their father's brother. He would have been made responsible for both Mary and probably Lazarus (who was likely the youngest) upon their parent's death (although Martha already having been married would have been of her own household). Thus the most likely scenario for Simon having stolen things from Mary, would have been that these items (of perfume) were probably part of her dowery.

 ** _Great Tribulation and 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth:_**

The next time we see this Mary and Jesus's feet. (She's the only one recorded who ever puts oil on his/His feet.) is "6 days before the Passover". (John 12) This wold have been Friday before Palm Sunday. Jesus states that she's kept this oil in reserve "against the day of my burial". It's spikenard (which is used for embalming) which usually when embalming a body, you start with the head.

Now 3 days later, an unnamed woman does pour oil on Jesus's head. That event I believe commenced the "3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth"; seeing how exactly 3 / 24 hour periods later; Jesus is dead. This I think also ties to Daniel "In the middle of the week, the Messiah is cut off." This is interpreted as "half way through the tribulation".

Now the "tribulation" is usually interpreted to be "7 years" (or in this case of "middle of the week" = 7 days. "6 days before the Passover" Jesus's feet are anointed. The 7th day would have been the day of the crucifixion. The angel of death comes to Jesus at midnight on Thursday night (ending the Passover); about 15 hours before Jesus dies. This is the end of 6 days, with part of day 7 commencing; which appears to me to be saying that the tribulation ended with the angel of death.

We are told by Scripture that the tribulation would be shortened or no flesh would be saved. This was covered more extensively in the Bible study The First Adam, The Last Adam (and all the rest of us). So thus we see the tribulation didn't end up actually being 7 days and this fits right in with this time table.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days is the sun darkened and the moon doesn't give it's light" Which is exactly what happened the day of the crucifixion. Than at the point Jesus dies; Revelation tells us he/He appears in heaven with people who've come out of the tribulation.

Jeremiah 30:7 talks about the days of Jacobs troubles. In the days of his trouble, Jacob is afraid. The text says God will come and save him from afar off. What is Jacob afraid of? The wrath of God. He's afraid he won't be able to endure it. "Jacob" in this context is Jesus. Jesus talks about the days of tribulation being shortened and they were shortened by the angel of death. And this angel of death is how God the Father saved Jesus from being afraid.

What was Jesus afraid of? The end of Jeremiah 30 says he's afraid of losing his "progeny". I.E. He's afraid of losing all he/He came to accomplish. What made him/Him afraid of that? Psalm 119:120 says "I am afraid of Thy judgements." Jeremiah 30 also talks about God's judgement upon Jacob for his transgression that were "increased" and "I have done this to you." God declares. Yet He says, you will be chastised but you won't be lost. Psalm 18 gives a good picture of the extent of what he/He feared in his/His soul. Verse 15 talks about the foundations of the world being discovered at God's rebuke. And what were those foundations? "For no greater love has a man than he lay down his life for his friends." This ultimate is what "completed" the atonement.

 ** _Back to where we left Mary Magdalene at the tomb:_**

So Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She was named among several wealthy women as one of Jesus's followers and although it does say she had 7 demons cast out of her, the Scripture never delineates the nature of that demonic possession. It does say that Mary had "infirmities of the flesh" which implies some physical problem that caused her to be in a lot of pain and therefore increasingly dependent on people. She may have had arthritis; which was common in the ancient world. The language though seems to imply that she was increasingly more dependent than was an actual result of her handicap. This leads me to believe that Mary was probably a hypochondriac, had Munchausen Syndrome or something of that nature.

So there's a lot of assumptions that Mary Magdalene wanted to drag Jesus into the bushes or something like that; but there's no evidence of that either. (Not that she would have been able to force him/Him if he/He wasn't a willing participant in the first place.) For all we know Mary might just have been "Hey! I'm happy to see you!" and just wanted to hug him/Him. There's nothing in the Scripture of her intent of wanting to touch him/Him and what that constituted to her; nor is there any indication of more than platonic intent by what Jesus says: "Don't touch me." Also, of her reaction to Jesus's statement. She's just kind of like "OK" (shrug).

 _#3 -_ Now the third possibility; (and probability) had more to do with Jesus Himself. He's just come back to the tomb after assuming someone (gardener of the cemetery) provided him/Him with clothing and most likely the opportunity to bathe. He'd come out of the tomb naked with all this burial spice (and blood) / goo still stuck to him/Him. The cemetery caretaker (or son) would have been the first human to see Jesus.

 ** _Witnesses of the Resurrection:_**

Obviously the angels saw him/Him upon being resurrected and may have actually rendered assistance to him in getting out of the burial shroud. (The Roman soldiers were all unconscious and no one else was in the immediate vicinity.) We have various account of two angels being seen by people coming to the tomb. We are told one descended to roll the stone away; yet we aren't told how many "angels" were present to actually witness the resurrection.

Which this has got me thinking; of any entities I hypotheses would want to "be there" - I'd guess the Spirit and the Father. Now if there were two "angels"; were they theophanies? Would that be who they would have represented? I don't know, but to me that would make a lot of sense.

Any how; next consideration. What would it actually entail to raise the dead?

Now other people in the Scripture had been "resuscitated"; (Lazarus even after having been dead a considerable amount of time). Yet these others could not have been raised if Jesus was not "the first born from the dead". The ability to bring these other people back to life was predicated upon the atonement being satisfactorily secured. So in this sense; Jesus's resurrection came upon a different paradigm than theirs did. Jesus was the first and only to come back after having endured the wrath of God.

Also duly noted of Christ's resurrection as opposed to anyone else's; was that no one else was accompanied by earthquakes and angels - thus a reflection of the special circumstances of having overcome the wrath of God.

This resurrection was the culmination of a lot of work. This was the conclusion of "the hard part"; (after having accomplished this - the recreation of the universe is going to be a piece of cake). This was the "Big Kahuna" so to speak; the "Main Event"; the anticipated finality of the work that had been accomplished.

Add to this; a body that has known no corruption, a sinless human entity and a Divine nature. Reassemble all these elements to be incarnated again back into the same body which is simply fashioned in the likeness of the first Adam.

Considering also the subject of this study and the reflections of God's goodness woven into the physical presence of life itself. What it means to be alive and the reflection of the good pleasure of the Creator instilled as part of the make up of the created. Set all cylinders to fire simultaneously, hit the switch and what do ya think happened? For the intensity of the "joy that was set before him" Jesus probably woke up... screaming. (Thus also likely as to why in the practical realm, no other human being actually witnessed the resurrection.)

So if I'm correct and being resurrected really was the "spiritual" 'initial ecstasy of the culminated act'; (having physical ramifications in the course of the natural event) which would have been personally a very profoundly humbling experience for him/Him - there probably were some very practical physical reasons why he/He didn't want Mary touching him.

Now obviously later on that day, there were many people who touched him/Him; women included and apparently he/He was fine with that. So this might have been just as simple as a "biological reality" that was present in the current moment that wouldn't have been obvious and under layers of clothing, but would have been obvious if Mary had hugged him/Him. (Save you the shock and me the embarrassment - Don't touch me.) Which if something like this was the case. It would make sense that his/His thought would be - I need to ascend to the Father; since how long have I been resurrected now (hours) and still... ehhh, in this state.

 ** _Jesus's persoanl experiences:_**

Now given the amount of wisdom and thoughtful contemplation that Jesus obviously possessed in regards to sexuality. I suppose it is possible he/He'd gone through his/His entire life (prior to death) and never experienced this particular type of 'Oh my God - Thank You' moment; but how likely do we really think that would be biologically; given he/He was almost 40 years old? Probably not very likely. And given the entire scope of what all this represents; I can't imagine that he/He wouldn't know.

That would kind of be like someone very well versed in automobiles and types of cars, history of cars, how they are assembled and how to fix them; yet never driven one. Doesn't seem likely.


	3. Chapter 3

**Jesus and the "M" word**

 _ **Masturbation:**_

Here I return to a subject that I'd classified in an earlier chapter as "probably". After having done some translation work in psalm 139 for another study; What'd He REALLY look like? in the light of that study, I would update my "probably" answer to "Yes, at least once."

Now where did I draw this conclusion out of?

 **15\. Never was anything hidden of (denied) of (the way my) physical body (was made) than (coming from) You, by which I was made in secret, perfectly woven in the lowest lands of the earth.**

Now, what the first half of this verse is telling us is that any questions or life issues that Jesus had, he was not denied the choice to explore. Now if he had a desire to find out what sex felt like, he was free to do so; yet only within the confines of what the law prescribed was appropriate to his life circumstances. So since there is no injunction against self stimulation, if he had an inclination to do so; there was no reason not to.

 _ **Now - behavioral context:**_

The rest of this psalm displays ample language of Jesus being grateful, amazed, and overwhelmed at the Father's care in his life. He was loved and he felt loved. That love was overwhelming to a positive impact on Jesus's psyche and emotions. That "overwhelmed" didn't make him fearful; although it made him awe struck, it also made him joyful.

Interestingly though; to be grateful, amazed and overwhelmed by this Divine presence not just in his personhood, but also in his "space" was humbling. Any of us who've experienced the presence of God can attest to this.

Again though, just like "overwhelmed"; it's not humility as a shameful sensation, but humility in an awe striking sense. It's humbling to be protected, loved, encompassed and "possessed of" (the possession of) God. It's (as Job describes) an "I place my hand over my mouth." reality: I don't have anything to say because words can't describe this. It's not a mere feeling. It's an awareness; and an awareness that's present regardless of how one "feels".

Not only is it all these other things; it's also comforting.

 _ **Sex as an act of worship:**_

Now did all these feelings of being amazed, enthralled, overwhelmed, loved and comforted translate into sexual arousal to Jesus? For someone who would have seen sex on account of it's extension of / reflection of God's goodness as an act of worship; that would be a logical conclusion, for that's what I think (just like every other good thing we have received from on high) sex was intended as in the first place.

Now worship entailed in the act of something, not for the sake of the experience itself, but for the pursuit of praising God (in the relationship with Him) for His goodness. We may sing and dance as acts of worship too that are performed in the physical world.

We also thank God for the provision He's given us in food, clothing, shelter, occupation, financial support etc. We may also be grateful for friends, family and pets (and / or farm animals). In all these things, in all that you do, do all to the glory of God. This encompasses every part of our lives, regardless of who we are or what our life circumstances afford to us.

The desire to pursue activity that would bring one to a more keen awareness of awe struck, cared for, overwhelmed, comforted and possessed of; in an act of surrender makes sense too. So thus it seems reasonable that activity that brought this awareness into focus would have been something Jesus desired to repeat.

Jesus had surrendered his entire existence and willingly so, on account of being loved and wanting to please the Father. Since the Father did love His Son, He also intervened for Jesus in ways that made being obedient easier. One obvious example we have is the angel of death at Passover. Jesus was so "hell bent" on accomplishing his mission that he surrendered his entire existence to that end. The Father helped him accomplish this by assigning his soul to a place where its human frailty wouldn't get in the way. This was a mercy to both us and Jesus. What it was like to have his soul severed from the rest of his personhood; I have no idea. Although I do think it would be reasonable to conclude that it was indeed a death in and of itself.

So likewise, I think this is also evident in the second half of the passage in Matthew 19 that says "by the power of God who restrains him….". The Father helped Jesus to be able to fulfill "be fruitful and multiply" via the Spirit by restraining him in the flesh. The Greek word here "restrain" or "contain" means "to make a space for". He made a space for Jesus to contend with this need between the two of them.

Now ironically, this word is also translated "accept"; which means to decide to be OK in that provided space. Which apparently Jesus decided to "occupy" that "space" as opposed to choosing to go to a different space. (i.e. fulfilling the command in the flesh). Yet in a grand way, as psalm 139 explains to us; Jesus was grateful for all the provisions in life the Father provided, because he knew it was all to the greater good in the end. Jesus was not bitter over what could be perceived to be "denied of"; but rather came to the conclusion that the Father's ideas were more excellent than Jesus's own and part of "learning obedience" was learning to trust the plan.

Also though, all of what Jesus may have wanted to understand was provided to him. If he wanted to know what it was like to have children; that was afforded to him also in Joseph's death. Now despite the painful trauma of Joseph dying that the entire family undoubtedly felt; I think Jesus came to a place of being grateful too for the lessons Joseph's absence afforded Jesus the opportunity to learn. For all intent and purposes, on account of Joseph's death; Jesus had the experience of raising a family.

So what of greater glory could Jesus have attained to in having his own wife and children than to reign in the kingdom of heaven? Yes, you can have those who will love you because you are their father; but what of a greater deed, than to have millions who love You because You bought them with Your own blood.

Yes Father, it was of a more brilliant plan to not let a good creation go to total waste! How ingenious; like this be fruitful and multiply idea we also came up with in eternity past. I'm eternally grateful I only ever have to endure this atonement ordeal once; but that other thing. Hallelujah, I want to do that again!


End file.
